King v. The City of New York et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Reyes. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in accordance with Judge Reyes's R&R, but must do so within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 5/16/2013. (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ANTHONY KING,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
12-CV-2344 (NGG) (RER)

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, "JOHN DOE" AND
"JANE DOE," 1 through 6,
Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff Anthony King brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants City ofNew York ("City") and several unknown officers of the New York City
Police Department, alleging violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and
several state law claims arising from his arrest and detention in May of 2010. (See Compl. (Dkt.
1).) Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment
on the pleadings. (Def. Mot. (Dkt. 15).) Plaintiff opposed the motion. (See Pl. Aff. in Opp'n
(Dkt. 18).) The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes for a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (See Nov. 9, 2012, Order.)
On April 15, 2013, Judge Reyes issued an R&R recommending that: (1) Plaintiff's false
arrest, false imprisonment, municipal liability, intentional infliction of emotional distress and
negligent hiring, training, and retention claims be dismissed with prejudice; and (2) Plaintiffs
claims for malicious prosecution and excessive pretrial detention be dismissed without prejudice,
and that Plaintiff be granted leave to rep lead these claims against the individual defendant

officers. (See R&R (Dkt. 22).) No objections to Judge Reyes's R&R were filed and the time to
do so has passed.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court "may adopt those portions of
the Report to which no objections have been made and which are not facially erroneous." La
Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); see also Porter v. Potter, 219 F.
App'x 112, 113 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to object waives further judicial review). The court
reviews de novo "those portions of the report ... to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l).
Because no objections have been filed, the court concludes that the R&R is not facially
erroneous and thus adopts the R&R in its entirety. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in
accordance with Judge Reyes's R&R, but must do so within thirty (30) days of the filing of this
Order.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis

N~HOLAS G. GARAUFIS

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May __j)e_, 2013

U

2

~ed States District Judge